G.R. No. 151866.

September 9, 2004]
SOLEDAD CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:

Assailed in the instant petition for review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 69537,[1] promulgated on 17 January 2002.[2] The appellate
court reversed the trial courts decision denying respondents claim for damages
against petitioner and ordered the latter to pay moral damages to the former in the
amount of P100,000.00.
Respondent Leonora Valmonte is a wedding coordinator. Michelle del Rosario
and Jon Sierra engaged her services for their church wedding on 10 October
1996. At about 4:30 p.m. on that day, Valmonte went to the Manila Hotel where the
bride and her family were billeted. When she arrived at Suite 326-A, several persons
were already there including the bride, the brides parents and relatives, the make-up
artist and his assistant, the official photographers, and the fashion designer. Among
those present was petitioner Soledad Carpio, an aunt of the bride who was preparing
to dress up for the occasion.
After reporting to the bride, Valmonte went out of the suite carrying the items
needed for the wedding rites and the gifts from the principal sponsors. She
proceeded to the Maynila Restaurant where the reception was to be held. She paid
the suppliers, gave the meal allowance to the band, and went back to the
suite. Upon entering the suite, Valmonte noticed the people staring at her. It was at
this juncture that petitioner allegedly uttered the following words to Valmonte: Ikaw
lang ang lumabas ng kwarto, nasaan ang dala mong bag? Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw
lang and lumabas ng kwarto, ikaw ang kumuha. Petitioner then ordered one of the
ladies to search Valmontes bag. It turned out that after Valmonte left the room to
attend to her duties, petitioner discovered that the pieces of jewelry which she placed
inside the comfort room in a paper bag were lost. The jewelry pieces consist of two
(2) diamond rings, one (1) set of diamond earrings, bracelet and necklace with a total
value of about one million pesos. The hotel security was called in to help in the
search. The bags and personal belongings of all the people inside the room were
searched. Valmonte was allegedly bodily searched, interrogated and trailed by a
security guard throughout the evening. Later, police officers arrived and interviewed
all persons who had access to the suite and fingerprinted them including Valmonte.
During all the time Valmonte was being interrogated by the police officers, petitioner
kept on saying the words Siya lang ang lumabas ng kwarto. Valmontes car which
was parked at the hotel premises was also searched but the search yielded nothing.
A few days after the incident, petitioner received a letter from Valmonte
demanding a formal letter of apology which she wanted to be circulated to the
newlyweds relatives and guests to redeem her smeared reputation as a result of
petitioners imputations against her. Petitioner did not respond to the letter. Thus, on
20 February 1997, Valmonte filed a suit for damages against her before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 268. In her complaint, Valmonte prayed that
petitioner be ordered to pay actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as
attorneys fees.

G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD

1
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
 Responding to the complaint, petitioner denied having uttered words or done any
act to confront or single out Valmonte during the investigation and claimed that
everything that transpired after the theft incident was purely a police matter in which
she had no participation. Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and for
the court to adjudge Valmonte liable on her counterclaim.
The trial court rendered its Decision on 21 August 2000, dismissing Valmontes
complaint for damages. It ruled that when petitioner sought investigation for the loss
of her jewelry, she was merely exercising her right and if damage results from a
person exercising his legal right, it is damnum absque injuria. It added that no proof
was presented by Valmonte to show that petitioner acted maliciously and in bad faith
in pointing to her as the culprit. The court said that Valmonte failed to show that she
suffered serious anxiety, moral shock, social humiliation, or that her reputation was
besmirched due to petitioners wrongful act.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that the trial court erred in
finding that petitioner did not slander her good name and reputation and in
disregarding the evidence she presented.
The Court of Appeals ruled differently. It opined that Valmonte has clearly
established that she was singled out by petitioner as the one responsible for the loss
of her jewelry. It cited the testimony of Serena Manding, corroborating Valmontes
claim that petitioner confronted her and uttered words to the effect that she was the
only one who went out of the room and that she was the one who took the
jewelry. The appellate court held that Valmontes claim for damages is not predicated
on the fact that she was subjected to body search and interrogation by the police but
rather petitioners act of publicly accusing her of taking the missing jewelry. It
categorized petitioners utterance defamatory considering that it imputed upon
Valmonte the crime of theft. The court concluded that petitioners verbal assault upon
Valmonte was done with malice and in bad faith since it was made in the presence of
many people without any solid proof except petitioners suspicion. Such unfounded
accusation entitles Valmonte to an award of moral damages in the amount
of P100,000.00 for she was publicly humiliated, deeply insulted, and
embarrassed. However, the court found no sufficient evidence to justify the award of
actual damages.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that the appellate courts conclusion that she publicly
humiliated respondent does not conform to the evidence presented. She adds that
even on the assumption that she uttered the words complained of, it was not shown
that she did so with malice and in bad faith.
In essence, petitioner would want this Court to review the factual conclusions
reached by the appellate court. The cardinal rule adhered to in this jurisdiction is that
a petition for review must raise only questions of law,[3] and judicial review under
Rule 45 does not extend to an evaluation of the sufficiency of evidence unless there
is a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the
record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of
discretion.[4] This Court, while not a trier of facts, may review the evidence in order to
arrive at the correct factual conclusion based on the record especially so when the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are at variance with those of the trial court, or
G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD
2
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
when the inference drawn by the Court of Appeals from the facts is manifestly
mistaken.[5]
Contrary to the trial courts finding, we find sufficient evidence on record tending
to prove that petitioners imputations against respondent was made with malice and
in bad faith.
Petitioners testimony was shorn of substance and consists mainly of
denials. She claimed not to have uttered the words imputing the crime of theft to
respondent or to have mentioned the latters name to the authorities as the one
responsible for the loss of her jewelry. Well-settled is the rule that denials, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving
which merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the
testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. [6]
Respondent, however, has successfully refuted petitioners testimony. Quite
credibly, she has narrated in great detail her distressing experience on that fateful
day. She testified as to how rudely she was treated by petitioner right after she
returned to the room. Petitioner immediately confronted her and uttered the
words Ikaw lang ang lumabas ng kwarto. Nasaan ang dala mong bag?
Saan ka pumunta? Ikaw ang kumuha. Thereafter, her body was searched including
her bag and her car. Worse, during the reception, she was once more asked by the
hotel security to go to the ladies room and she was again bodily searched. [7]
Serea Manding, a make-up artist, corroborated respondents testimony. She
testified that petitioner confronted respondent in the presence of all the people inside
the suite accusing her of being the only one who went out of the comfort room before
the loss of the jewelry. Manding added that respondent was embarrassed because
everybody else in the room thought she was a thief. [8] If only to debunk petitioners
assertion that she did not utter the accusatory remarks in question publicly and with
malice, Mandings testimony on the point deserves to be reproduced. Thus,
Q After that what did she do?
A Then Leo came out from the other room she said, she is (sic) the one I
only saw from the comfort room.
Q Now, what exact word (sic) were said by Mrs. Carpio on that matter?
A She said siya lang yung nakita kong galing sa C.R.
Q And who was Mrs. Carpio or the defendant referring to?
A Leo Valmonte.
Q Did she say anything else, the defendant?
A Her jewelry were lost and Leo was the only one she saw in the C.R. After
that she get (sic) the paper bag then the jewelry were already gone.
Q Did she confront the plaintiff Mrs. Valmonte regarding that fact?
A Yes.
Q What did the defendant Mrs. Carpio tell the plaintiff, Mrs. Valmonte?
A Ikaw yung nakita ko sa C.R. nawawala yung alahas ko.
G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD
3
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
 Q When the defendant Mrs. Carpio said that to plaintiff Mrs. Valmonte were
there other people inside the room?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were they able to hear what Mrs. Carpio said to Mrs. Valmonte?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your thinking at that time that Mrs. Carpio said that to Mrs.
Valmonte?
A Nakakahiya kasi akala ng iba doon na talagang magnanakaw siya. Kasi
marami na kaming nandodoon, dumating na yung couturier pati yung
video man and we sir.
Q Who was the person you [were] alleging na nakakahiya whose (sic) being
accused or being somebody who stole those item of jewelry?
A Nakakahiya para kay Leo kasi pinagbibintangan siya. Sa dami namin doon
siya yung napagbintangan.
Q And who is Leo, what is her full name?
A Leo Valmonte.
Q Did the defendant tell this matter to other people inside the room?
A Yes, the mother of the bride.
Q And who else did she talk to?
A The father of the bride also.
Q And what did the defendant tell the mother regarding this matter?
A Nawawala yung alahas ko. Sabi naman nung mother baka naman hindi
mo dala tignan mo munang mabuti.
Q Who was that other person that she talked to?
A Father of the bride.[9]
Significantly, petitioners counsel elected not to pursue her cross-examination of the
witness on this point following her terse and firm declaration that she remembered
petitioners exact defamatory words in answer to the counsels question. [10]
Jaime Papio, Security Supervisor at Manila Hotel, likewise contradicted
petitioners allegation that she did not suspect or mention the name of respondent as
her suspect in the loss of the jewelry.[11]
To warrant recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action, for a
wrong inflicted by the defendant, and the damage resulting therefrom to the
plaintiff. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a
cause of action.[12]
In the sphere of our law on human relations, the victim of a wrongful act or
omission, whether done willfully or negligently, is not left without any remedy or
recourse to obtain relief for the damage or injury he sustained. Incorporated into our

G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD

4
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
civil law are not only principles of equity but also universal moral precepts which are
designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience
and which are meant to serve as guides for human conduct.[13] First of these
fundamental precepts is the principle commonly known as abuse of rights under
Article 19 of the Civil Code. It provides that Every person must, in the exercise of his
rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due
and observe honesty and good faith. To find the existence of an abuse of right, the
following elements must be present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is
exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent or prejudicing or injuring
another.[14] When a right is exercised in a manner which discards these norms
resulting in damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the actor can
be held accountable.[15] One is not allowed to exercise his right in a manner which
would cause unnecessary prejudice to another or if he would thereby offend morals
or good customs. Thus, a person should be protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his right, that is when he acts with prudence and good faith;
but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[16]
Complementing the principle of abuse of rights are the provisions of Articles 20
and 21 of the Civil Code which read, thus:

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals or good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.

The foregoing rules provide the legal bedrock for the award of damages to a
party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal
provision, or an act which though not constituting a transgression of positive law,
nevertheless violates certain rudimentary rights of the party aggrieved.
In the case at bar, petitioners verbal reproach against respondent was certainly
uncalled for considering that by her own account nobody knew that she brought such
kind and amount of jewelry inside the paper bag.[17] This being the case, she had no
right to attack respondent with her innuendos which were not merely inquisitive but
outrightly accusatory. By openly accusing respondent as the only person who went
out of the room before the loss of the jewelry in the presence of all the guests
therein, and ordering that she be immediately bodily searched, petitioner virtually
branded respondent as the thief. True, petitioner had the right to ascertain the
identity of the malefactor, but to malign respondent without an iota of proof that she
was the one who actually stole the jewelry is an act which, by any standard or
principle of law is impermissible. Petitioner had willfully caused injury to respondent
in a manner which is contrary to morals and good customs. Her firmness and resolve
to find her missing jewelry cannot justify her acts toward respondent. She did not act
with justice and good faith for apparently, she had no other purpose in mind but to
prejudice respondent. Certainly, petitioner transgressed the provisions of Article 19
in relation to Article 21 for which she should be held accountable.

G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD

5
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.
 Owing to the rule that great weight and even finality is given to factual
conclusions of the Court of Appeals which affirm those of the trial court, [18] we
sustain the findings of the trial court and the appellate court that respondents claim
for actual damages has not been substantiated with satisfactory evidence during the
trial and must therefore be denied. To be recoverable, actual damages must be duly
proved with reasonable degree of certainty and the courts cannot rely on
speculation, conjecture or guesswork.[19]
Respondent, however, is clearly entitled to an award of moral damages. Moral
damages may be awarded whenever the defendants wrongful act or omission is the
proximate cause of the plaintiffs physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
and similar injury[20] in the cases specified or analogous to those provided in Article
2219 of the Civil Code.[21] Though no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order
that moral damages may be adjudicated, courts are mandated to take into account
all the circumstances obtaining in the case and assess damages according to their
discretion.[22] Worthy of note is that moral damages are not awarded to penalize the
defendant,[23] or to enrich a complainant, but to enable the latter to obtain means,
diversions or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has
undergone, by reason of defendants culpable action. In any case, award of moral
damages must be proportionate to the sufferings inflicted. [24]
Based on the foregoing jurisprudential pronouncements, we rule that the
appellate court did not err in awarding moral damages. Considering respondents
social standing, and the fact that her profession is based primarily on trust reposed in
her by her clients, the seriousness of the imputations made by petitioner has greatly
tarnished her reputation and will in one way or the other, affect her future dealings
with her clients, the award of P100,000.00 as moral damages appears to be a fair
and reasonable assessment of respondents damages.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on official leave.

G.R. No. 151866. September 9, 2004] SOLEDAD

6
CARPIO, petitioner, vs. LEONORA A. VALMONTE, respondent.